AMICUS BRIEFS FILED IN FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN SUPPORT OF NORTH STAR’S PETITION FOR REHEARING

Yesterday, July 10, 2025, two amicus curiae briefs were filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit supporting North Star’s combined Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc in North Star Technology International Ltd. et al v. Latham Pool Products, Inc.  The panel decision of April 24, 2025 is here.

The amicus briefs were filed by Robert Oake who was lead counsel for Egyptian Goddess in the seminal Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa case from 2008, decided by the Federal Circuit en banc.  It was that case that first set forth the “sufficiently distinct/plainly dissimilar” language now in contention in the North Star case.  Mr. Oake’s brief is here.

The second brief was filed on behalf of the Institute for Design Science and Public Policy (IDSPP), an independent, non-profit professional organization founded in 2011 to support the integration of design science and design intellectual property rights.  The brief was penned by Damon Neagle, a noted design lawyer.  The IDSPP brief is here along with its Exhibit A.

For background, my previous post sets forth the facts and issues in the case (from my admittedly biased view as North Star’s lead counsel), as well as the district court’s decision on appeal, and links to the parties’ appeal briefs. 

For an in-depth review of the issues, see my paper “Sufficiently Distinct is Insufficient as a Test for Design Patent Infringement”, published recently in Indiana’s law journal IP Theory.